 amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | hahaha That is just awesome. Nice graphs too.
Hope this settles for the best - so far it seems like it could end badly for all parties involved | |
|
| | Comcast lying? Say it ain't so. I know this isn't the first time they've been caught deploying some very shady networking techniques to get more money but this is getting ridiculous | |
|
 | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Comcast lying? These graphs prove why consumer ISPs are so stingy on upload speeds (sold in units of 128 or 256 kbitps), since if they let all their residential customers upload, alot of the paid peering would turn into free peering due to the ratios leveling out costing massive money for the consumer ISPs. | |
|
| | | | Re: Comcast lying? said by patcat88:These graphs prove why consumer ISPs are so stingy on upload speeds (sold in units of 128 or 256 kbitps), since if they let all their residential customers upload, alot of the paid peering would turn into free peering due to the ratios leveling out costing massive money for the consumer ISPs.
No, not really. The upload speed problem is simply due to the return plant issues and the fact that the return frequencies are much lower and subject to a lot more noise than the forward path. That's it. No grand conspiracy here, move along.
The average residential user does not really use a lot of upload, at least for legal, non-p2p traffic. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Comcast lying? Nicely left out was the LEGAL p2p traffic. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? said by WernerSchutz:Nicely left out was the LEGAL p2p traffic.
Yeah, because most people who use bittorrent are downloading linux distros, lol | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? really?
That old chestnut? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? said by backness:really?
That old chestnut?
Cable shills do not go to training but only every three years or so. | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by backness:really?
That old chestnut?
Sure. Tell us all of the legal p2p traffic that people are uploading. I'm all ears. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |  QumahlinNever Enough TimePremium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state | Re: Comcast lying? Proof? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Comcast lying? google it | |
|
| | | | | | | said by fifty nine:said by WernerSchutz:Nicely left out was the LEGAL p2p traffic.
Yeah, because most people who use bittorrent are downloading linux distros, lol Ever heard of foreign TV using p2p transmission ? Did not think so. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? said by WernerSchutz:said by fifty nine:said by WernerSchutz:Nicely left out was the LEGAL p2p traffic.
Yeah, because most people who use bittorrent are downloading linux distros, lol Ever heard of foreign TV using p2p transmission ? Did not think so. Absolutely. But how much P2P foreign TV is legal and non infringing? And how significant a percentage of internet traffic is it, compared to file sharing for copyright infringement? | |
|
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Comcast lying? said by fifty nine:Absolutely. But how much P2P foreign TV is legal and non infringing? And how significant a percentage of internet traffic is it, compared to file sharing for copyright infringement?
You know, pushing that argument beyond some limits gets old. Most foreign TV is not infringing, but ENCOURAGED by the broadcasters. Watching German news so I can see what happens in the world internationally besides US news that talk only about fucking panda's in China or some rat infestation in Mexico is legal no matter how much you try to push it as being questionable. As far as percentage I do not care or know, it was a reply to your Linux distros red herring. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? Yeah keep pushing that same old bullshit.
The fact is that most P2P traffic is infringing. Legal content is in the minority by far. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? said by fifty nine:Yeah keep pushing that same old bullshit.
The fact is that most P2P traffic is infringing. Legal content is in the minority by far.
As said above:
"6month old list »p2peducation.pbworks.com/w/page/···rontPage
in the last week blizzard(world of warcraft) alone generated more legit bittorent traffic than all the other US p2p traffic combined!" | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | What? so you're telling me that what makes broadband so compelling is piracy? That's so shocking to me. | |
|
| | | | | |  markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| I'm on Comcast. How do I upload P2P foreign TV from my home in the USA? I want to upload something, I have no use for it right now and this sounds interesting. Does it come in the mail on DVD? Do I need a C-band satellite? How exactly do I upload foreign television on a Comcast network?
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? said by markofmayhem:I'm on Comcast. How do I upload P2P foreign TV from my home in the USA? I want to upload something, I have no use for it right now and this sounds interesting. Does it come in the mail on DVD? Do I need a C-band satellite? How exactly do I upload foreign television on a Comcast network?
www.tvunetworks.com . The player uses a p2p distributed engine to deliver data. | |
|
| | | | | | | | markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 | Re: Comcast lying? I see, said the blind man. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast lying? It actually works well. I watch while eating in my kitchen some German train channel that shows views from trains rolling there. Drives my wife crazy, but I have lots of model trains so... | |
|
| | |  KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by fifty nine:...and the fact that the return frequencies are much lower... This just makes me want to come get the hook out of your mouth.
We can't possibly run upstream at a higher frequency!  | |
|
| | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: Comcast lying? Well, no, we can't. The cable system wasn't designed for every TV (endpoint) to talk back into the network. DOCSIS 3 expanding the upstream range to 86MHz is going to cause enough grief. Go check your distribution amp; it's return path is only designed up to 45-50MHz. The cable company hangs the same amps you can buy from solid signal in the grey box outside your house to feed more than one drop. The power amps all over the system are not designed for high frequency returns. | |
|
| | | | | KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Comcast lying? You misunderstood my point. My point is that the cable companies do not have to use what's handed to them. Certainly the larger cable companies have the financial means and resources to develop the technology and hardware (yes this would mean new equipment, instead of sticking with 10-year old plus tech gear) for pushing upstream at higher frequencies over their existing copper plant. Doubt it's an issue at all on the fiber side of the plant. | |
|
| | | | | | miscDude
join:2005-03-24
Hendersonville, NC | Re: Comcast lying? said by Kylemaul:You misunderstood my point. My point is that the cable companies do not have to use what's handed to them. Certainly the larger cable companies have the financial means and resources to develop the technology and hardware (yes this would mean new equipment, instead of sticking with 10-year old plus tech gear) for pushing upstream at higher frequencies over their existing copper plant. Doubt it's an issue at all on the fiber side of the plant.
I'm not certain, but I think part of the issue is FCC Regs. I believe there is much stricter controls on anything "broadcasting" at the higher frequencies, and also much more chances of any rf leaks causing serious problems. If someone's box device in the home goes funky and starts sending a lot more crap on the return or screaming down those frequencies, it could cause many more problems with other things using those frequencies in the world. | |
|
| | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Comcast lying? The lower the mhz, the less immuned the channel is, since all the channels under 10 mhz are usually a few khz analog voice channels or low bandwidth digital. Wideband (>1 mhz) systems feature massive amounts of ECC (compared to an analog walkie talkie) and spread spectrum to overcome any interference, even if they are on licensed spectrum. I would assume interference regulations are much stricter on channels used for analog voice rather than ECCed digital data.
Also no cable modem will "transmit" until it hears/finds the downstream channel and CSMA/CDs itself an upload timeslot to auth with the CMTS, same with cellphones. A cable co could just shut down the modems or issue restarts to the modems until the interference modem goes offline and the interference disappears.
Coax doesn't magically leak more at a higher frequency or based on direction. A cable modem and cable box can both jam the node. Sure a broken CE box hooked up to the coax can knock out the node, but that signal won't escape the coax.
upstream split has nothing to do with this »www.kramerfirm.com/pictures/disp···=4&pos=4 upstream and downstream will radiate
The real problem of upstream is the fact you need to replace every last circuit board on the HFC plant for that node. Every amp, repeater, line extender, node, etc. That costs a fortune, well, according to them everything does. The CEO can always use a larger monthly bonus. Just easier to sue FTTH away and use pay-per-gig to cut down on the traffic. | |
|
| | | | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | You don't get it. They would have to physically REPLACE a surprising amount of hardware throughout the distribution network to support higher frequency return. Amps, converters, bridges, RF switches, etc., etc. These are not devices that can be fixed with a firmware upload. You cannot turn a 10M nic into a 10G nic with new firmware; it's physical components limit the capability.
Could they? Sure. At the cost of billions. You expect the greedy bastards who won't spend single digit millions on D3 upgrades, to wholesale rebuild their entire network? Right. Hold your breath until they do. | |
|
|  newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | I you take everything Comcast says as a lie from the outset, and then invstigate . . . you'll be ahead of the game in the end. Comcast is just so damn devious, it's no damn wonder that people hate them more than the IRS. | |
|
vzguy71
join:2006-02-11
Albany, NY
kudos:1 | TATA Ok so if Level 3 gives in and pays Comcast to peer directly, and avoid TATA, Netflix traffic is saved...but what about the other traffic that is still being affected by saturated TATA links? How does this affect day to day browsing for Comcast customers? Comcast is still refusing to upgrade these links just to screw with providers like Level 3? Doesn't sound any better than their Sandvine stunt. | |
|
|  jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: TATA said by vzguy71:Comcast is still refusing to upgrade these links just to screw with providers like Level 3?
No. Comcast is screwing its customers.
It's like paying for a buffet and finding the food trays empty because comcast can't fill them fast enough. Other companies (Level3) can fill the trays with food but comcast wants to also charge them money to do so.
It seems like L3 is doing a favor for comcast by providing data for free instead of comcast having to buy more bandwidth on its own. Instead, comcast wants to charge L3 for the privilege of delivering the data?
If I were running L3, I'd tell comcast to screw off and make it a point to let every comcast subscriber know why their netflix isn't working well. | |
|
| |
See 33 replies to this post |
|
| | | L3 already agreed to pay Comcast. They admited that. So they actually believe in a paid internet model by paying. They could have said "NO" but didn't
But it would be smart for Netflix to co-lo in to the ISPs. Hell they'd save $$$$$ out the ass by avoiding CDN all the way. Drop a few servers in side the Comcast, ATT, VZ, WOW, TWC and other large networks and be done with it. They'd avoid a helleva lot of issues with L3 and the other CDN providers. | |
|
| |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | | I have been making this argument from the beginning as I saw right through Comcast as I educated myself on them.
Comcast links with a couple other T1 providers as well and already has agreements with them in which they pay Comcast to reach Comcast ISP consumers. They do not pay Comcast to reach other users on the internet, just Comcast subscribers.
Thus, if someone wants to reach Comcast consumers and is willing to pay they go through those links so that they get "preferred" treatment. If you are not willing to pay to get to Comcast ISP consumers you go through TATA. Guess which one a company that relies on good bandwidth to survive will chose? As L3 has shown, they have no choice but to pay up or be reduced to TATA level of service.
Comcast has essentially implemented per service / application "tubes" that they will collect additional fees on as it "prioritizes" bits thus violating net neutrality rules. | |
|
| |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: TATA Actually, scratch that. AOL now peers with Comcast. Probably pays for it too. | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | WHO IS TATA or WHAT IS TATA?
Any relation to the Indian conglomerate? | |
|
| | Pick one link and throw mud?? Out of how many and across how many peers with massive content shifts happing every day.
Out of all the postings here with GREAT performance, excellent stats in the rankings, and only a few occasional one off issues, how much can you trust this mud slinging?
Think there is any motivation behind the poster? | |
|
| | | Re: Pick one link and throw mud?? This is one router out of how many? How do we know this wasn't about a day before it was upgraded? And how we do know it wasn't from a disgruntled ex-employee with a axe to grind? | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Easy answer: DSLReports speedtests are conducted mostly on Comcast's network, as are speedtest.net tests, as are comcast.net speed tests. I'll hunt around later for a speed test site running over TATA and show you what happens then... | |
|
 SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA
 ·voip.ms
 ·T-Mobile US
| imgsrc.ru seems to load better on comcast via proxy So, this is why my connection to imgsrc.ru servers keep getting reset and timing out when using Comcast at home?
Because Comcast won't play nice with the other kids in the Global Communications sandbox?
If I use a proxy or other ISP, my connection to imgsrc.ru seems to work just fine | |
|
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: imgsrc.ru seems to load better on comcast via proxysaid by SysOp:So, this is why my connection to imgsrc.ru servers keep getting reset and timing out when using Comcast at home?
Because Comcast won't play nice with the other kids in the Global Communications sandbox?
If I use a proxy or other ISP, my connection to imgsrc.ru seems to work just fine
Does your traceroute go through TATA? It makes me wonder if they don't use TATA for their customers that they provide transit for as it goes through level3 here:
traceroute to praha-2.imgsrc.ru (87.242.73.60), 30 hops max, 46 byte packets
1 ip-66-33-193-1 (66.33.193.1) 1.440 ms 247.497 ms 54.321 ms
2 ip-66-33-201-113 (66.33.201.113) 0.321 ms 0.420 ms 0.298 ms
3 be-10-702-cr01.losangeles.ca.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.205) 1.610 ms 2.081 ms 1.261 ms
4 xe-11-1-0.edge3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (63.208.231.125) 0.737 ms 0.753 ms 0.763 ms
5 ae-93-90.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.144.244) 10.452 ms ae-73-70.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.144.116) 1.219 ms ae-93-90.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.144.244) 12.253 ms
6 ae-4-4.ebr4.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.132.82) 68.844 ms 69.074 ms 70.263 ms
7 ae-74-74.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.182) 75.326 ms 70.105 ms 72.429 ms
8 ae-72-72.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.149) 69.199 ms 69.189 ms 69.696 ms
9 ae-44-44.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.137.61) 159.964 ms ae-42-42.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.137.53) 157.403 ms 158.316 ms
10 ae-45-45.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.165) 161.698 ms ae-46-46.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.169) 160.522 ms ae-45-45.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.165) 162.034 ms
11 ae-1-7.bar1.Copenhagen1.Level3.net (4.69.142.169) 174.236 ms 174.362 ms 175.247 ms
12 ae-1-5.bar1.Stockholm1.Level3.net (4.69.140.197) 186.847 ms 186.822 ms 186.804 ms
13 rt741-001.stk.retn.net (213.242.110.18) 178.363 ms 179.901 ms 178.734 ms
14 GW-MasterHost.retn.net (87.245.249.14) 204.537 ms 203.099 ms 204.196 ms
15 msk-m9-77-vl11.masterhost.ru (217.16.23.130) 203.028 ms 205.118 ms 204.488 ms
16 praha-2.imgsrc.ru (87.242.73.60) 206.090 ms 205.938 ms 205.053 ms
--
Two 35/35 FIOS connections bonded to 70/70 | |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | I am thorougly disgusted with Comcast..... They can't seem to get their shit straight.... | |
|
kcblackPremium
join:2000-09-11
Chicago, IL | so, upgrade... I mean, I don't understand what the issue is...
A little surgery, some filler and they can upgrade to some bodacious TATAs and 95+ of the male population that uses Comcast would be very happy.
(I know, I couldn't help myself. It was a moral imperative to post this. Apologies to all, lol).
Seriously, I'm the customer so they should spend some of those ridiculous profits to upgrade the backbone links to provide me with a fast, cheap pipe to the net for whatever I want to do with it. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | humm.. so I guess Comcast told everyone to suck from the tata hehe... | |
|
 DrunkPremium
join:2010-11-16
Elizabethtown, PA | TATA for now Can somebody tell me what the heck TATA is? | |
|
| |
| | | said by Drunk:Can somebody tell me what the heck TATA is?
TATA is a Tier 1 transport provider. | |
|
| | | | Re: TATA for now those are nice tata's in the graph! ( o Y o ) LOL I couldn't resist! Sorry. | |
|
|  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | said by Drunk:Can somebody tell me what the heck TATA is?
I won't pretend that I fully understand their business, but they are essentially considered to be a tier-1 network, at least in regards to the issue being discussed.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | A classic Net Neutrality case. Pay or face crippling Bingo.
Time to come down on Comcast like an anvil. Won't happen, however. | |
|
| |
miscDude
join:2005-03-24
Hendersonville, NC | Honest question here... Ok, I no expert on all the specifics in play here, but I do have an honest question.
My understanding, based in part on what I found a few years ago while looking at some interconnection costs and policies (and therefore may be a bit dated)..... Aren't paid peering relationship costs usually based to some degree on the amount of traffic and/or bandwidth?
So could Comcast's desire to not upgrade their Paid Transit TATA links be based more on the desire to control their costs rather than to try and "force settlement free peering" from other providers?
I mean, sure, a tightened bottleneck may result in people coming to the table to talk about a direct interconnection of some sort (either paid to/from or settlement free), but from a cost control standpoint I could see if you are paying a 3rd party to deliver traffic to/from different networks, you would be paying more than if you were paying the actual network directly.
Without knowing all the details of the agreements and interconnections in place, i'm just wondering if this could be the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
(Trying to figure out if there is actual shadiness at play, or if things are just sounding shady because of the strong anti-Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon/AT&T/QWEST feelings many people have here.) | |
|
 ed
@comcast.net |  Comcast Should?
Comcast could have told level3 that what you see is what you get, we'll keep the original peering contract and charge for any additional BW you may require, which from what I've read throughout the internet is how its played out so far.
Now, Level3 could say we'll just stick to our original peering agreement and we will not pay for additional BW. It will be just a matter of time before Comcast customers start getting annoyed that they are having latency/QOS issues while trying to stream Netflix content and give Comcast the boot.
Now I am wondering about the transit agreement that Comcast has with Level3. Comcast pays Level3 for this service, can any overflow from the peering agreement get funneled to the transit agreement. I honestly don't know but I suppose its possible and if thats the case Comcast could be paying Level3 for the influx of traffic into the comcast network
Comcast could just give Level3 the boot and go with another transit provider and cancel the peering agreement all together. But guess what? Comcast customers are going to still watch Netflix. And Comcast customers are still going to be annoyed by the latency/QOS issues. Comcast will be paying a huge price to its new transit provider because of the bandwidth issue and still having to build up its network to handle traffic.
What Comcast should do is advertise this working partnership with Level3 to provide an enriching experience for Netflix Subscribers and explain the benefits of becoming a Comcast Customer, emphasizing the Netflix Brand.
Just my thoughts | |
|
| | | Re: Comcast Should? How would customers give Comcast the boot? Who are they going to go to? A DSL provider? Yeah that will help with Netflix streaming I'm sure. | |
|
| | | | Re: Comcast Should? said by sonicmerlin:How would customers give Comcast the boot? Who are they going to go to? A DSL provider? Yeah that will help with Netflix streaming I'm sure.
Heh, I wish I had DSL as an option ! | |
|
|  SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 | Yeah, like laymen would be smart enough to blame Comcast when Netflix gets stuck buffering and other video sites don't. Sorry, but the average user knows jack about the workings of the internet. They will wrongly blame Netflix, especially after a call to Comcast tech support. To the others, Netflix works fine over dsl(my only option at home).
--
The new Sony rootkit-Using the ability to remove features you paid for. What's next? Boycott Sony products »[Rant] ps3 update = no more Linux | |
|
|
|
·
·
